ESCORTS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of an industrial dispute relating to termination of the services of Ishwar Singh, Respondent 2, (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour court. By award dated 9/3/1993 the Labour court found that the service of the workman had been terminated in violation of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and, therefore, the said termination was illegal and unjustified. The Labour court has directed that the workman be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant against the said award was dismissed in limine by the High courtof Punjab and Haryana by order dated 9/2/1994. The review petition filed by the appellant for the review of the said order was dismissed by order dated 27/5/1994. These appeals have been filed by the appellant against both these orders of the High court.

(2.) Shri N. B. Shetye, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the Labour court was in error in applying the provision of section 25-F inasmuch as the workman had not completed 240 days of service on 13/2/1987 when his services were terminated and further that the termination of the services of the workman does not amount to retrenchment in view of clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act because the said termination of services of the workman was effected in accordance with the terms of employment of the workman. It is urged that there is no dispute that the workman had worked on daily-wage basis during the period from 5/2/198686 to 29/4/1986, 14/7/1986 to 31/12/1986 and 9/1/1987 to 12/2/1987 and his services were terminated on 13/2/1987. According to Shri Shetye, the total number of days the workman had actually worked and for which he was paid during this period comes to 214. The submission is that since the workman was not being paid for Sundays and other holidays those days could not be counted and that the Labour court was in error in counting sundays and holidays to arrive at the conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days. Shri Shetye has also invited our attention to the letter dated 9/1/1987 whereby the workman was given temporary appointment for a period of 2 months. In the said letter it was stated:

(3.) The submission is that in accordance with the terms of employment contained in the said appointment the letter dated 9/1/1987 the services of the workman were terminated on 13/2/1987.